unicorn

Which airline?

True, but not relevant to this discussion.

I'm sure almost everyone, including myself, yourself, the judge, and the jury was incensed by the defendant's depraved behavior. Whether the judge or jury followed the law is something an appeals court will decide.

That's probably the crux of the problem. The judge probably wanted a certain outcome and got it. Jury trials can be a bit of a farce when the judge gives specious and misleading instructions, and/or filters the testimony in a certain way. As they're written, the laws in California seem clear that 2nd degree murder constitutes deliberately killing someone without planning, such as in the heat of passion or in a sudden fight like a bar-room brawl. Manslaughter happens when a person kills due to wanton disregard for the safety of others. The judge and jury were probably incensed (as I was) over the defendant's behavior and lack of remorse, so wanted to see her spend of her life in prison. While I understand the sentiment, I feel verdicts should be based on the letter of the law, not on emotions.

In my reading of those laws, the intention must be to kill someone, not to speed. Therefore, someone who reacts impulsively by killing someone upon discovering his spouse having sex with someone else is guilty of 2nd degree murder (the behavior was impulsive and without premeditation, but with the intent to kill the victim). In fact, that's the exact example given for 2nd degree murder. What the perpetrator did in this case was horrific and egregious, but she was not trying to kill the children, as wontonly reckless as her behavior was. One can make a case for voluntary manslaughter and/or vehicular manslaughter, but this did not meet the definition of murder. My sense is that the jury was incensed (as I am) of the defendant's refusal to accept responsibility for the deaths. I would have supported convictions for voluntary manslaughter, with maximal, consecutive sentences for each wrongful death. I understand (and share) the anger, but it seems the law was not followed here. We should not let our feelings get in the way with applying the law as it's written.

Confusing entry. What supposedly caused her death?

A local socialite was convicted of murder yesterday due to slamming her Mercedes into two children while engaging in a speed race on a public street. She'd had prior convictions for similar unsafe driving behavior. No question but that she should spend years in prison. But the law here in California states that murder must involve a planned intention to kill someone, so I would think the crime would be manslaughter, not murder. I can't understand how jurors could come to the conclusion that this constituted murder. I wonder if they were merely incensed by the defendant's contention that it wasn't her car which killed the kids, and that the defendant didn't show any contrition. As horrified I am of her behavior, I question whether this behavior constituted murder. https://abc7.com/rebecca-grossman-trial-boys-crash/14461388/ "Rebecca Grossman, co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation, was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges Friday for a 2020 crash in Westlake Village that left two young brothers dead. The nine-man, three-woman jury reached its verdict on the second day of deliberations, mulling the evidence for a total of about nine hours before rejecting a defense contention that Grossman's then-boyfriend, former Dodger Scott Erickson, was the one who fatally struck 11-year-old Mark Iskander and his 8-year-old brother, Jacob, on Sept. 29, 2020. Grossman, 60, was convicted of two counts each of second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and hit-and-run resulting in death. She could face up to 34 years to life in state prison. She remained free throughout the trial on $2 million bond. Sentencing was scheduled for April 10...". This lawyer explains what's manslaughter and what's murder according to California law: .https://bernal-law.com/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-homicide/ Manslaughter is a criminal offense that involves the unlawful killing of another person. It is distinct from murder, primarily in terms of intent and circumstances. Manslaughter typically falls into two categories: Voluntary Manslaughter: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another individual without premeditation or intent to kill. Instead, it often results from a sudden emotional response, such as rage or fear. In some jurisdictions, this is sometimes referred to as a “heat of the moment” crime. An example might be a situation where a person discovers their spouse in the act of adultery and reacts with a deadly assault. Involuntary Manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter is the accidental killing of another person without intent. It is typically the result of recklessness, negligence, or criminal negligence. This can include actions like driving recklessly and causing a fatal accident, providing drugs that lead to an unintentional overdose, or failing to exercise proper care while handling a dangerous weapon. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in criminal law, as they influence the charges, legal defenses, and potential penalties in cases involving loss of life. Homicide Homicide, on the other hand, is a broader and more encompassing term that encapsulates the unlawful killing of another person. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Homicide is divided into two main categories: Murder: Murder is a form of homicide characterized by the presence of malice aforethought or premeditation. It is the intentional killing of another person with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm. Murder charges are generally categorized into first-degree and second-degree murder, with first-degree murder typically involving premeditation and a deliberate intent to kill. Non-Criminal Homicide: Not all homicides result in criminal charges. Some homicides are deemed justifiable or excusable, such as cases of self-defense, defense of others, or using deadly force by law enforcement in specific circumstances.

And what if one of them turns out to be gay? Given the number of children they have, it's probable at least one will be LGBTQ. That kid would grow with the knowledge that his parents essentially sacrificed their lives due to hatred for what they are. 😬

Stupid is as stupid does. They deserve every bit of misery coming to them. Canada and Russia have the coldest climates on the planet. They need "winter clothing"???? WTF?? It's difficult to wrap one's mind around such stupidity. I guess evil hatred is a powerful motivator for some people.

We don't know how far you are from BKK... 😉

A new law in the US has required the covering up and closure of exhibits of Native American culture. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/arts/design/native-displays-museums-law.html?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240222 "When new federal regulations took effect last month requiring museums to get consent from tribes before exhibiting certain Native cultural items, museums across the country began to remove objects from cases, cover up displays and even close entire halls...". The New York Times gives an example, which I believe demonstrates the over-reach: Accession Year: 1893 Description: These oblong ear ornaments made of shell were part of the Field Museum’s exhibit on objects from the Hopewell mounds, a series of earthen structures in Ohio that were estimated to have been built between 1,600 and 2,000 years ago. In the early 1890s, the archaeologist Warren K. Moorehead excavated the site and displayed his findings at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The objects collected for the exposition became the foundation for the Field Museum’s collection. Why it’s off display: The federal repatriation law applies to funerary objects, or belongings that were buried with the dead, often as company on their spiritual journeys. Helen Robbins, the repatriation director at the Field Museum, said it was likely that these items and others in the Hopewell cases are funerary. I should note that the Hopewell people no longer exist, so there is no one from whom to obtain consent, nor is there anyone who could possibly take offense at the display of the ear ornaments. What's next? Should museums have to try to track down relatives of Egyptian mummies to obtain their consent? Here's another Hopewell example: Accession Year: 1893 Description: This pipe made from stone was also dug up from a Hopewell mound by Moorehead’s team. Why it’s off display: The pipe is likely funerary, and there is also the possibility that modern-day tribes could consider it sacred. In the past, museums considered objects as old as this pipe, which could be more than a thousand years old, difficult to repatriate because determining which modern-day tribe they should go to could be complicated. But the new regulations direct institutions to consult with federally recognized tribes connected to the geographical area, which in this case includes the Shawnee Tribe and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, among others. Why should one have to try to obtain consent from clearly unrelated tribes, whose language and customs are clearly vastly different? The New York Times link may be under a paywall, so if you can't access, here's another link to an article which describes the problem: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/29/us-museums-nagpra-native-american-displays-new-regulations

What you said is true, though Botox use is very common in LA, especially in the gay community. It costs him about $300 every 6 months, so not an huge expense.

I thought about this string today while walking my dog in the park. There was actually someone who was walking outside wearing an N95. The study which essentially ruled out outdoor transmission was published in August of 2020 (if I recall correctly, they researched over 30,000 infections, and of those, about 10 may have been contracted outdoors, but in those cases, there had always been prolonged face-to-face contact such as an outdoor dining situation). It also made me think of this tour I took of southern Lake Tahoe over 30 years ago. The tour guide pointed out Liberace's mansion near the lake, which sold for a pittance because people were afraid of contracting HIV, although the fact that the disease was sexually transmitted was well-known at the time of his death in the late 80s. I guess a lot of people get solace over taking "extra precautions" even when those precautions are scientifically known to be useless. Too bad I hadn't known about the sale (and had enough money--I was in residency at the time).

One can, and they did have observers in the RCT's. This included the Bangladeshi study, which had observers in the villages. In that study, there were other measures taken in addition to masking in the subject group, but the benefit was only 9.5%, obviously an irrelevant difference (the 95% confidence interval included no benefit). I just came back from a large medical conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida a couple of weeks ago (Pri-Med). There were over 2000 attendees, plus staff, speakers, and exhibitors. During the whole 3-day conference, I counted 3 people wearing masks (not one of them a speaker). I took a 777-300 to and from LAX (we flew into Miami), and I saw no passengers wearing masks on the way over and two on the way back. It seems that almost everyone, especially physicians, understands the reality at this point. Believe me, when the pandemic started, I was masked with N95's, goggles, and so on. As the studies came out, I changed my behavior on the basis of study results. I remember feeling shocked by governors who dropped mask mandates, before the studies came out. As it turned out, they guessed correctly, although it was a dangerous guess at the time. One can never, of course, prove a difference of zero. That being said, enough studies have been done, with relative risks adding up to the 0.98 to 1.02 range, that if there is a difference either way, the difference is functionally irrelevant. As much as I wish masks helped, science shows that, sadly, they do not. I know lots of people will believe in some crazy shit just because they wish it were true (look at all of those MAGA nut-heads). I'm not one of those people.

That reminds me of Mexico's prohibition of alcohol sales around election times. Though elections are on Sundays, some states ban alcohol sales for the entire week-end! Some people could go into DT's. 😉 At least it's done for secular reasons, not due to imposing religious values on others. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/sundays-elections-will-mean-a-ban-on-alcohol-sales-in-many-locations/

She was detained on completely separate charges: contempt of court for failing to testify for the grand jury investigation into Assange's case. Although I can't read the link you provided, I suspect it fully explains the situation.

That's a lie, and you know it.

While not quite as completely asinine as Kostik's ridiculous argument of "the only truth comes from the land where we murder opposing reporters and politicians, and propaganda comes from places with freedom of the press," your post simply brings up completely false analogies and factual inaccuracies. First of all, Assange, Snowden, and Manning all released large quantities of classified documents which greatly harmed US national security, endangered lives, and ruined others' lives. Navalny did no such thing. What kind of a jackass would equate the release of classified documents with participating in marches? So no, I would not defend these self-deluded assholes. Manning was released in 2017, after having served some 7 years. Snowden has chosen not to face justice and is leading life as a free man. Very much unlike Navalny, none of these people were poisoned, tortured in the Arctic Circle, then murdered, with their bodies disappearing. Any attempt to compare these is outrageous.

I don't know why you continue to post the ridiculous BS you post. You're not convincing anyone--not even yourself.

Yes, you got it right, there.

Well, according to the article, none of the suggestions work well. So what was the point of providing that link? 🤨

Yes, because a day doesn't go by when we don't hear of journalists critical of Biden being shot at point-blank range in the elevators of their apartments, or thrown out of their 5th story windows, or poisoned by Aeroflot (or American Airlines) flight attendants. And the American government poisoned Navalny, then sent him to an icy prison north of the Arctic Circle, murdered him, then somehow convinced the prison officials to hide the body. You post some of the most ridiculous, stupid shit I've ever read. And you know it damned well, too.

Yes, it's pretty obvious to everyone that Putin likes to keep re-emphasizing the message that anyone who even speaks against him will be murdered (under his orders). Countless people have been victims to this nut-case's paranoia. He will go down in history as a brutal human butcher, along with Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn (and a coward as well). I have a strong feeling you do as well (either that, or you're the большой идиот/дурак). Surely no one could be so stupid as to believe Biden had any interest, much less the ability, to murder Navalny. At least Navalny had the courage to speak the truth, something you're too cowardly to do. Although I didn't agree with everything Solzhenitsyn said, at least I have to admire his courage to speak his mind against Stalin (who, unlike, Putin, had at least the sense to deport rather than murder him). It seems like few Russians share his courage.

The differences lie in the depth of the danger, and the hostility of the dictatorial government proper to the US. Belarus's Lukashenko could decide at any time to take a US citizen hostage on some ridiculous pretext (i.e. Griner's possession of less than a gram of cannabis oil), and put this person in prison, perhaps with hard labor, while trying to get concessions from the US government. While there are dangers from hostile countries around Israel, at least the Israeli government is not hostile to the US. Also, there are ways to minimize the dangers in Israel. The massacre at the Re-im Music Festival was horrific, atrocious, and completely inexcusable. That being said, you would never find or have found me at a music festival bordering the Gaza strip under any circumstances, much less on the 50th Anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. Strangely, when I was in Egypt last month, I was surprised to learn than October 6th has long been considered a holiday in Egypt. I suspect most Egyptians don't even know that they lost that war (which they started). https://www.britannica.com/topic/Armed-Forces-Day-Egyptian-holiday "Armed Forces Day, public holiday observed in Egypt on October 6, celebrating the day in 1973 when combined Egyptian and Syrian military forces launched a surprise attack on Israel and crossed into the Sinai Peninsula, which marked the beginning of the October (Yom Kippur) War." So the dangers of Israel are real, though somewhat manageable. I agree that this isn't the best time to visit Israel. I've only traveled to Level 3 countries rarely (maybe 2 or 3 times in my life). I've never traveled to a Level 4 country, though. I'm not sure if I ever will, even if it means that there will be one country in Europe I'll have never visited. Who knows when Lukashenko will die (or be killed).

Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Israel is not in the "exercise increased caution" list (level 2), but rather on the "reconsider travel" list (level 3). I admit that I have visited countries listed in level 3 (Egypt recently), but have not and probably will not ever visit countries in the "Do not travel" list (level 4). The country I'm most tempted by is Burma, but I'll wait until things calm down there. Most of Southeast Asia is Level 1, except for the Golden Triangle region. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/israel-west-bank-and-gaza-travel-advisory.html